Yes, it does. The iPhone accounts for 8% while Android Devices account for 14%.

From the link:

Quote:

We sample only calls we take at our contact centers (principally based in the U.S. and Europe)
...
"In this study, we were only able to use transactions in our direct control and split out hardware failures as part of that," Deluca-Smith added.

I think that reports doesn't include nor calls to brand service calls (Apple, Samsung or RIM support) nor people calling their carriers so it's a bit incorrect.

As much as I hate to admit this, under the current roll-out strategy the iphone in the long run is going to be marginalized and end up with a static (i.e. replacement level) and then eventually greatly reduced market share.

Go to any cell store in the USA and you're slammed with tons of visually impressive Android devices. I have had bad success lately convincing people to go with iphone (which I still don't understand but that Droid marketing is very very successful on Verizon). The android selection is so large, prices initially cheaper, that the single iphone just looks pathetic next too all these crappy functioning but visually impressive devices.

Hope I am wrong. But I don't believe the iphone is going to stay at it's current level given the onslaught of devices it faces.

I kind of agree with your sentiment; visiting Sweden right now, and was walking around a mall with 5-6 kiosks selling phones. Now that everything looks like the iPhone, I can't imagine how a consumer would be able to differentiate between models. From a sales perspective, it would be easy to say "all these phones are Android, except for that lonely one over there which is an Apple." It is the same old problem with buying a Mac at BestBuy 5-6 years ago... sure they have them, but the sales guy would never encourage it.

But, the solution is pretty easy... it just comes down to using advertising for consumer education. I do like the idea of having a few different models available from Apple though.

The analyst (Munster) was quoted in the article saying that Apple activated 29 million iOS devices in June alone. June has 30 days. That's almost 1 million per day...still well ahead of Android. (Edit: I now think the quote was wrong and he meant the June quarter.)

That makes a lot more sense. Google's claimed 550,000 per day would be around 50 million in the quarter compared to Apple's 29 million. That's a lot more believable than the 3:1 ratio you get when you compare Android activations to iPhone sales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwydion

Why do you bet that? What do you think an activation is?

I don't know - and that's the problem. Google is bragging about a number that is meaningless because it's never been defined.

I doubt the number of activations is much bigger than 1 - unless they're stupid enough to count used android sales, which are pretty significant at least where I live. In that sense Apple should maybe counter with "activations" for iPhones - I know 2nd hand 3GS, and 2G are hot sellers around these parts...

If you buy a used Android device and then put it onto a wireless network, you have to activate it. So used devices would almost certainly be counted.

The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".

It is foolish to try to compare Android activations to iPhones sold. If you must make a comparison, you can only compare the SAME thing on both platforms. Compare devices sold to devices sold. Or compare activations to activations (just make sure that you define 'activations' well enough that it means something).

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Agreed, although I'm very suspicious of the 550,000 activations per day figure since it can't be verified by anyone else - and Google refuses to provide any sales figures to back it up.

Apple SOLD 16 million iPhones in the quarter and Google claims 50 million activations. Does anyone really believe that they sold 3 Android phones for every iPhone? Based on what I'm seeing in the real world, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.

If Google were being honest, they're report how many phones were sold (and don't tell me they don't know - they get a record of how many Android licenses are issued each quarter). Or tell us how many activations are counted per phone. I'll bet the number is significantly greater than 1.

Don't compare apples and oranges.

We use iPhones (3GS, 3GS, 4) and a Windows 7 Phone (HD7S). So you now know what we use in our home. Anyway...

Yes I do believe this. Why? If you go to a Verizon or AT&T Store it is almost all Android (and to a smaller extent - Windows 7 Phone) with only 1 or 2 iPhones on display. There are simply more AT&T/Verizon stores than Apple stores.

I don't believe Apple has anything to worry about; the market can handle several players. But of the people I know, most use Android. It is just like with computers, there are simply more computers running Windows versus OS X. There are simply more hardware choices for Android.

Will we buy an Android phone? I was tempted last year by the HTC Aria, but my wife used our upgrade for her iPhone 4 and I am glad she did! I am happy with my 3GS and HD7S phones. Will I upgrade to the iPhone 5? Unknown. It depends on the design as I really like the iPhone 4 design.

Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.. .

If it's a quality OS that vendors can get behind, devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.

So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.

In the fall of 2009 Apple held 14% of the smartphone market, up from 2% a year prior. That was considered "eating everyone's lunch" by some analysts. In the fall of 2009 Android had 2% share, and now surges to 38% in less than two year's. Is that still the equivalent of "eating everyone's lunch"?http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-lunch-2009-10

So Solipcism, there's still the unanswered question: Which OS should the OEM's be adopting?

When i pay attention to what people use for their cell phones, I see more Andriod devices than i do iPhones. All these numbers do not mean anything. People lie all the time. I like the iPhone. There are 3 in my family, but we seem to be a rare bunch.... Everyone else we know has Androids or BB's.

I guess it depends on your circle of friends really...

I work in small cafe in Cleveland, OH, and I've noticed many more iPhones, iPads and Mac laptops than a total of all other makes and brands. I am still amazed at how many Apple products I see on a day to day basis.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.

normally you're one of the voices of reason around here, so this really surprised me. Android grew immensely fast, unprecedentedly fast. Just because an OS is free doesn't mean it will unseat incumbents. How many Linux desktops do you see out in the wild compared to Windows? Android was primarily competing with 'free' OSes anyway -home-grown platforms like Bada & Symbian, linux/JVM phones and feature phones.

The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.

Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.

The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".

you misread that...

Sold 16 million iPhones.

Apple sold 29 million iOS devices... They do sell other devices that use iOS; AppleTV, iPad, iPod touch.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.

For lack of a better example: If you say your Bugatti Veyron can go from 0-60mph in 4 seconds and has a top speed of 150mph I'd say something is very wrong with your vehicle as it's designed to be much faster. It has no barring on whether my Kia is faster or slower in any way than your Veyron because it's based on expectations of your device.

Android is a freely distributed OS used by dozens of vendors across dozens of new devices each quarter and at dozens of price points throughout the world. If it's a quality OS that vendors and devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.

Some anecdotal evidence... where I live (Western Canada) there isn't an iPhone to be seen at any of the phone vendors. Every time I pass by any vendor all I see are Android phones and those are the phones that they will push on you. You actually have to ask to see an iPhone and then they will not show it to you... you actually have to buy it untested in many places.

I'd say the reason for this is that the vendors are making a higher profit on Android phones (including incentives). Some places don't even have any iPhones... and haven't had them for weeks.

These numbers are deceiving. They are new phone activations which to me could mean that the massive number of phones being activated could be replacements for poorly built phones. I and many of my friends who have iPhones have had the same device for over two years now. I'm constantly seeing my other friends who have the latest flavor of 'droid' going back to the store or calling their insurance for a replacement device. Each of these replacements are then activated and feed this number of 'new phone activations.' People in this situation are not in a position to switch phones all together because that would mean more money out of their pockets.

I have seen this with my nephews when I was on Vacation to my old home town. Plus don't forget the two Android phones for one family plan as well as other promotions giving away free android phones.

normally you're one of the voices of reason around here, so this really surprised me. Android grew immensely fast, unprecedentedly fast. Just because an OS is free doesn't mean it will unseat incumbents. How many Linux desktops do you see out in the wild compared to Windows? Android was primarily competing with 'free' OSes anyway -home-grown platforms like Bada & Symbian, linux/JVM phones and feature phones.

The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.

Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.

1) Linux is the most popular kernel in the world.

2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.

3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

While your conclusion may be correct, your evidence isn't. The problem with that survey is it only gives the proportion of service calls that are hardware related - that could be caused by Android having worse hardware, or it could be caused by Android having fewer problems with carriers, software, ...

The report explicitly says that it doesn't cover actual issue rates (so called Propensity To Call) because they don't have enough information about the population of users to make a determination. So we can't use that survey to estimate the chance that an Android handset will develop a hardware fault versus an iOS handset or a BB handset.

2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.

3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.

Do you mean distros? Linux distress is what I feel when I see how they bloated KDE & Gnome in an attempt to compete

Linux didn't fail on the desktop because it's flawed for the desktop. Way back in 1995 Linux offered a demonstrably superior desktop experience to Windows 3.1, what it lacked was applications. Linux failed on the desktop for market reasons, not for technical reasons.

An Activation is every time a device is "reset". When a phone is reset it generates two unique keys (reset 4 times you get 8 unique keys). One is associated with your Google services/accounts and the other is for geo-services. When the account key is logged in for the first time, it "Activates" the phone with Google specific services for GMail and such.

In his case, this engineer went between multiple Android handsets (he had 3) and when he went from phone to phone to phone (this could happen many times/week), he would move the SIM card from phone to phone and reset. Each reset was counted as an "Activation".

While his case is special (developing) it does show there is a weak correlation to "Activations" and sales. His 3 phones might post a dozen "Activations"/week. The overwhelming majority of cases, however, have a 1 to 1 relationship between a user and a phone. None the less, resetting a phone seems fairly common in the "rooting" and "hacking" world of Android so this might be an artificial weighting.

Without transparency from Google, we have no idea what this "Activation" number really represents. It might represent sales or a number 1.3X larger than actual sales.

Likewise, this engineer did NOT work on the Android team but had good friends that did. It is possible that the Google "Activation" count counts a unique handsets UDID a single time.

An Activation is every time a device is "reset". When a phone is reset it generates two unique keys (reset 4 times you get 8 unique keys). One is associated with your Google services/accounts and the other is for geo-services. When the account key is logged in for the first time, it "Activates" the phone with Google specific services for GMail and such.

In his case, this engineer went between multiple Android handsets (he had 3) and when he went from phone to phone to phone (this could happen many times/week), he would move the SIM card from phone to phone and reset. Each reset was counted as an "Activation".

While his case is special (developing) it does show there is a weak correlation to "Activations" and sales. His 3 phones might post a dozen "Activations"/week. The overwhelming majority of cases, however, have a 1 to 1 relationship between a user and a phone. None the less, resetting a phone seems fairly common in the "rooting" and "hacking" world of Android so this might be an artificial weighting.

Without transparency from Google, we have no idea what this "Activation" number really represents. It might represent sales or a number 1.3X larger than actual sales.

Likewise, this engineer did NOT work on the Android team but had good friends that did. It is possible that the Google "Activation" count counts a unique handsets UDID a single time.

There were many Google Engineers at WWDC learning about Lion and iOS 5. You spend lots of your life at WWDC standing in lines. Lines for lunch. Lines for breakfast. Lines to get in in the morning. Lines to attend sessions. Lines to attend labs. And don't get me started on the line for the Keynote.

Lines. Lines. Lines. Everywhere Lines.

While in lines, you strike up conversations and in this case, I asked on of the Google Engineers that was standing next to me wat "Activations" meant.

You know that will never happen. In general, fandroids have extreme anti-Apple sentiments.

If you follow that line of argument, then Apple fanboys are equally biased. But why not allow room for those of us who are simply engineers and will either praise or criticize a product for its pros and cons? Judge a comment on its merits and do not refute it using irrelevant characterizations. It is possible that someone disagrees with a comment because the comment is simply wrong (often the case here), not because of their pro-Android sentiments.

While your conclusion may be correct, your evidence isn't. The problem with that survey is it only gives the proportion of service calls that are hardware related - that could be caused by Android having worse hardware, or it could be caused by Android having fewer problems with carriers, software, ...

The report explicitly says that it doesn't cover actual issue rates (so called Propensity To Call) because they don't have enough information about the population of users to make a determination. So we can't use that survey to estimate the chance that an Android handset will develop a hardware fault versus an iOS handset or a BB handset.

Unfortunately that report is pretty much useless.

Precisely!

There are obviously crappy Android phones, because there are so many Android licensees. But I don't understand those who generalize it to all Android phones. This is actually a disservice to Apple, as if iOS and iPXXX devices cannot stand on its merits and can only shine in comparison to fabricated Android problems.

He Perhaps doesn't but a friend of someone tell me something not baked by any evidence it's not the best source

It depends on who it is. In this case, it was a Google Engineer that worked at the Plex. While he worked in the Google Earth team, he did lots of mobile development and has good friends that work on the Android team. Not only that, it makes sense because we have been told by Google devices without the Google Services are not counted in the Activation numbers.

The source is 10X better than Engadget, SlashGear or AI. The description is reasonable but, as I said, because Google refuses to be transparent on the matter, we simply don't know. There may be multiple "Activation" numbers within Google for different things.

That's true for people who go to the mobile shops and aren't sure what they actually want or need. iPhone's are sold by word of mouth, not sales pitches or shelf display zazz. Most of the people I know who have recently switched to the iPhone, have done so because they saw someone (a friend) using one.

I believe the iPhone's share will rise significantly after iOS 5 is released this fall as it will offer all the significant benefits of both Androind and BlackBerry and even improve upon them.

All of my friends who have Android phones *wanted* an iPhone but couldn't get one because it was either unavailable to them, too expensive, etc. So they *settled* for an Android phone that was "pretty much like an iPhone".

So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.

In the fall of 2009 Apple held 14% of the smartphone market, up from 2% a year prior. That was considered "eating everyone's lunch" by some analysts. In the fall of 2009 Android had 2% share, and now surges to 38% in less than two year's. Is that still the equivalent of "eating everyone's lunch"?http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-lunch-2009-10

So Solipcism, there's still the unanswered question: Which OS should the OEM's be adopting?

You missed Solipsism's point. Android OS is FREE and distributed a vast amount of OEMs that now have an incentive to develop Android phones as it both saves R&D and allows them to compete against iOS without having to spend the time developing their own OS.

iOS, on the other hand, is not free, and is proprietary to Apple. So you have ONE vendor using a proprietary OS vs. a myriad of vendors using a FREE OS. And iOS combined still controls around half of the market.

Windows wasn't free, and yet that controlled the market totally. Android IS free, and yet is in second place (save for phones).

"Crystal clear, right? No, not really. An often heard question is the following one: Does everytime I flash a ROM count as an activation?. No, and Ive got proof.

No he does not. We don't know if this list is what Google uses for the word "Activations". In the explanation I was given, the pattern might be: An "Activation" is when a phone is activated to Google services (after a reset/upgrade/ROM Flash) and the newly activated phone is different than the previously activate phone.

That might explain his "errors". So a simply reset or upgrade won't count unless you also change phones. That would explain why the engineer told me his phones were counted as activated multiple times/day at times. We was doing a reset with a change of phones?

Do you mean distros? Linux distress is what I feel when I see how they bloated KDE & Gnome in an attempt to compete

Linux didn't fail on the desktop because it's flawed for the desktop. Way back in 1995 Linux offered a demonstrably superior desktop experience to Windows 3.1, what it lacked was applications. Linux failed on the desktop for market reasons, not for technical reasons.

But for the most part, market reasons are the important thing. Marketing 101 tells you that simply building a better mousetrap doesn't mean you'll be successful.

What good is a computer without applications? All of us Apple users in the 90s experienced the frustration of having only a small subset of applications available for a long time. Windows wasn't successful because it was a better OS.

It's the same with mobile OS. Without applications, the platform will always be relegated to a niche. Which is why the iOS and Android have been so successful on smartphones, at the expense of Blackberry and webOS.

On tablets, the game is even more shifted toward iOS, as what other platform has 100,000 tablet apps? Other tablet sales might spike for a bit while they are "new", but unless a platform has a healthy library of applications, it doesn't have the fuel necessary for growth it's like a fire that quickly burns hot, but then dies when there's no wood. Unless QNX, webOS, and even Android for tablets builds up a competitive library of applications, they'll be relegated to a niche, like Apple was in the 90s.

But for the most part, market reasons are the important thing. Marketing 101 tells you that simply building a better mousetrap doesn't mean you'll be successful.

Exactly my point, so even a 'completely free' OS like Android, had barriers to entry, which it has spectacularly overcome. Handset makers needed to be convinced, carriers needed to be convinced, users, developers, content owners, etc. There are limits to how quickly that can happen, even for Android. Now it's certainly true that the limits to Android's rate of growth were less than the limits to iOS, but limits existed and still exist nevertheless.

That might explain his "errors". So a simply reset or upgrade won't count unless you also change phones. That would explain why the engineer told me his phones were counted as activated multiple times/day at times. We was doing a reset with a change of phones?

No idea, like I said I'm not sure how much light it sheds, we're trying to stitch a tapestry out of scraps here. Nothing that this guy says directly contradicts what your guy said though. Switching a sim between phones is a very different thing to just re-flashing a phone. Google may use some kind of combination of SIM id, GSM id, MAC address etc which eliminates some duplications but not all.

Interesting point though, Google could clear all this up, and Google knows that clearing it up would increase the value of the metric to analysts etc, so they must have a reason for not doing that. One possible reason is that the real number is much lower once duplicates are stripped out, another reason is that they're already stripping duplicates really well, but the way that they do it would have privacy implications that might cause bad PR.

Maybe there are other possible reasons, but I can't help thinking that they must have a reason - because as a big seller of advertising, Google knows the value of auditable numbers.

It's a legitimate concern to know what counts as an activation. If you buy an Android phone and it's returned a week later because it's faulty for a replacement Android phone is that 2 activations? If you return it for an iPhone does that still count as 1 activation? Does flashing the ROM to then root the device count as an activation? Does each new gmail account added to the device (e.g., selling it) count as an activation?

Id like those details too.

I have, I believe, 2 iPhone activations: a 3G and then a 4. Im keeping my 3G as an iPod for multiplayer and other casual uses.

My two Android-using friends probably have six or eight between them, and counting! Because every single Android phone they try disappoints them, and they always get another one quickly. I shudder to think of the unsubsidized cost of that habit! But somewhere is a drawerful of their Android phones that couldnt receive voice calls for unknown software reasons, or couldnt last the day on a battery charge. Do these two people get counted as new activations every time? Or were their initial two activations counted, and no more after that?

Interesting point though, Google could clear all this up, and Google knows that clearing it up would increase the value of the metric to analysts etc, so they must have a reason for not doing that. One possible reason is that the real number is much lower once duplicates are stripped out, another reason is that they're already stripping duplicates really well, but the way that they do it would have privacy implications that might cause bad PR.

I don't see Google's reason as being altruistic at all. Big numbers sound good especially in advertising. Since Google is interested in number of eyes on the screen, the number of activations give an indication of the number of "newish" accounts are looking at devices even if the device has been used by 3 people prior to that.